The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1887-12-31
CREAM OF THE PRESS.
BfG IDEAS OF THE DAY 3Y EDL
TORSAND OTHERS.

Lawyer Andrews on the Constitution
The North Carolina Debt Question-Newl
in the Matrimonial Market-The Irish
Ouestion-Dr. Dillon. VI. =.
In answer to a question asked by Nor
ton, Bliss & Co, of New York, Mr.. Ed
ward l.. Andrews, the Nell-known law.
yer, gives ar exhaustive criticism of the
legal aspects Of the suit before the United
States Supreme Court upon the North
Carolina Special Tax Bonds"
Mr.. Andrews reviews the condition OF
The States as open 10 ordinary proceed
ings before the Eleventh Amendment
vas adopted, and says. For six years
after the formation of the Government
suits were Brought, under this jurisdic-
lion against States, 10 recover upon ordi-
nary debts, without any Federal element
IN the cases. These suits arose from the
condition which existed after the Reyo-
luton, when some of The States failed to
pay their debts, for reasons similar TO
those which occasion individual defaults
on obligations. These States did not
pass any laws impalring the obligation of
their contracts. they had been engaged
during the Revolution in that system of
legislative population"
+ He then shows what caused the Tenth
Amendment aud how the leases under
the Constitution" are different from
those, to which the amendment applies
THE adopters OF the amendment did
not contemplate that the States OF the
Union would seek 10 nullify the Consti-
ton by passing laws impairing contracts.
That matter was deemed 10 have been
settled by the recent adoption Of the
organic law Of the Union. Its nullifca-
ton was no more within the contempla.
ton Of the trainers of the amendment Of
1903 than 1t was within the conception OF
the trainers of the Constitution of 1887.
In adopting the amendment, they confined
It's terms to any suit at law or in equity
having in their minds the mere enforce.
mcnt of liabilities, and not the protection
against unconstitutional legislation. They
did not prescribe that the judicial power
shall not extend 10 cases arising under
the Constitution, brought Sy aliens or
non residents against States. The Con-
stitution had ordained the generic dis
twinctiOn between Federal cases, aud ordi-
nary normal suits. Even cases arising
under the Constitution are, OF course,
enforceable by suits at laws or in equity.
But this f. a mere matter of form, and
the Constitution had established two
classes OF judicial rights, differing in
substance. In ~enacting the amendment,
care was taken not 10 pass he boundary,
with which il was intended TO be circum-
scribed, namely, the classes of suits that
were commonly known as suits at law or
in equity. From this standpoint, the
amendment Is harmonized with the con
tract andjudlclary clauses of the Constitu-
ton. II was not intended TO afford i'm
munily for the violation of Federal
rights, nor to change the framework of
The Government in respect of the sane
ton afforded contracts. II left the Fed.
eral jurisdiction TO prevent States from
enforcing laws passed in violation of the
Constitution, with the same plenary char
acter which pertained 10 ii tefore the
adoption Of the amendment. The limits
Of this paper do not permit the reference
to the historical facts which su"bstantiate
tits view Of the question, but investiga-
ton shows that they are ample for the
purpose.
In the cases heretofore presented
to the Supreme Court, attempts were
made 10 avoid the Amendment, by suing
the officers Of States for execution OF
States contracts, and the court held, as in
the recent Virginia cases, that aliens or
non-residents bringing these suits, and
in those characters, were really engaged
in suing the States, against the specific
inhibiliOns Of the Amendment. But a
case 10 prevent the execution Of laws i'm
pairing the obligation of contracts, Is
maintainable against q State and its ex-
ecutiye officers, without any reference to
the citizenship Of the plaintiff. Such suit
is not brought by a citizen of another
State in any true sense-it Is not brought
as such citizen, nor because of such citi-
zenship. 1t rests purely on Federal sub
feet matter jurisdiction over a case aris-
ing under the Constitution, and is not,
therefore, within the scope of the amend
ment.
"Ghe suit at bar is, however. much
stronger in character. 1t is brought by q
citizen of North Carolina against that
State, and asks for protection of his Fed
eral rights. 1t rests upon the unim-
paired judicial power over eases arising
under the Constitution" and which has
never been expressly or implicitly limited.
1t is neither within the letter nor the
spirit of the Eleventh Amendment.
Upon q question similar to the one in this
case, the Supreme Court has held that
the language and scope Of the amend.
ment cannot be extended to prevent pro-
ceedings against States by their own
citizens, asserting their Federal rights.
The recent decisions Of that court do not
furnish any warrant for q contrary con-
clusion, TO those who read Its opinions In
the light of the controversies there de-
cided. Yours, respectfully,
EDWARD l.. ANDREWS"
Mr.. John Dillon, the Irish member OF
Parliament has declared In a speech that
the reduction of rents made by Lord
Salisbury's commission fully justified the
policy of the Nationalist and the plan OF
campaipn. That Is an accurate state